Hudson Valley Renegades
HV · South Atlantic League South Atlantic League North · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 25 | 28 | −3 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 23.2 | 22.7 | +0.5 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4783 | 4825 | −42 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 98.0% | 94.9% | +3.1% | 10th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 1st of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 36 | 36 | — | 16th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 62.5% | 64.9% | −2.3% | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 24 | 20 | +3 | 23rd of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 46 | 0 | +46 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | 0.36 | 0.00 | +0.36 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.17 | 5.55 | −0.38 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.81 | 5.55 | −0.74 | 3rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .504 | .500 | +.004 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .533 | .501 | +.032 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.7 | -0.1 | −3.6 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .498 | +.002 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .561 | .502 | +.059 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .538 | .512 | +.026 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .477 | .519 | −.042 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .532 | .481 | +.051 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .489 | .509 | −.020 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 9 | 6 | +2 | 2nd of 30 |
|
Rank is among the A+ clubs with a value for that metric, best first. Descriptive metrics (roster age, WAR concentration) are ranked but not colored — for them, "high" isn't "good".